Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:
Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…
These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.
One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.
” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.
UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
@JS
Tell you what, if/when more debris arrives, GE Rijn and me will be driving the others nuts with our from-a-distance forensic assessments!
@ROB – now waiting for several tones of floating Mangosteens, which should have arrived much sooner.
Forgive me if this has all been covered and labeled conspiracy kook material, but I have some questions relating to 9M-MRI.
I first came across this plane during some routine googling, and read about Flight MH091 from November 4, 2006 and it RR engine blowing out or something.
When doing some follow up reading on 9M-MRI I realized that this plane was the one bought by the company which stored it in Tel Aviv.
I’m not trying to dig up old disproven theories; I just was curious if anyone can shed some light on the 2006 incident and what sort of observable damage it did to parts of that plane. This became an intriguing thought lately, particularly in light of the recent observations you’ve been making on the newest debris damage and piercings.
@js I actually find it less curious that the comments increase when something interesting is happening.
It is at these times that Jeff tends to post another post on the blog. Info about the post gets tweeted and shared elsewhere on the net. This had the effect of putting links to this blog at the top of Google news and other engines when you search for #mh370 thus advertising the blog.
It is exactly what anyone advertising a blog in a commercial setting does to increase readership. Post regladly on the blog then advertise the articles you’ve posted on social media etc. And it works.
As for general contribution on blogs I agree with Susie that in the vast majority of cases blog comments sections are not used in the way Jeff is using this one. They are normally places where individuals post single comments and not ones where there is longterm engagement. In that sense this blog is acting more like a fb page or group. Readers new to the blog won’t get that.
Of course none of this negates your suggestion however I do think it is a case of when we hear hoof beats think horses.
@Jeff Thank you for your reply, I did expect that you would explain you were wrong about Kazakhstan after all this debris being found as I mostly keep up with the story from the newspapers and assumed your story had been ruled out as I thought it was just a spoof in the first place.
I must have misunderstood.
@ Sunken Deal,
http://www.kaepa.org.kw/kaepa/pdfs/Safety%20bulletins/2006/FSB-01nov06.pdf
Doesn’t look like the cowling was damaged very much – internal parts and according to some sites, a D-ring may have been lost.
Oh and the left flaperon was damaged. Not the right one though.
No reactions yet on the holes and cuts in the debris. Especialy the engine cowling.
No respons from Brock McEwen on my reply yet.
He suspected some embarrissing reason. I’ll give him one.
A very embarrissing scenario that could explain the reluctants and secrecy about information and the eagerness to condemn the plane was lost in the SIO so early on.
The plane was shot at by its own militairy.
That might be the reason no other primary radar data is revealed before Buttersworth.
Maybe that’s why no jets scramble anymore when it flew over Malaisya.
A crippled plane left on its own.
Maybe it was a mistake or on purpose.
Anyway reasons enough to cover up by this governement.
@Ge Rijn
@Ken Goodwin
I have been able to tie down (figuratively speaking) panel 661FB, the item found by Blaine in Madagascar, to the fixed trailing edge panel immediately outboard of the outboard fairing on the outboard flap. The panel was originally approx 1.65m long, 0.3m wide, so about half of it is missing. The missing section was the inboard end of the panel, ie. The section next to the flap fairing.
Identified with the help of a schedule list of panels in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual, matched against panels visible on a high res photo of wing underside
Seems most likely the panel broke off as the flap assembly itself was being wrenched away from the wing.
@OZ, buyerninety. I think the APU fuel pump would start at flameout, which is the way with the GE engine.
Oz, your description of this cutting in “when the left engine is not operating” that you interpret to mean the engine has gone “sub-idle” is not supported by an amplification, that pump automatic start is on loss of fuel manifold pressure “and left engine N2 is less than engine run speed”. Certainly this statement applies to the GE engine but if the aircraft design requirement includes this as part of an auto-relight capability for that engine why would it not require it for an alternative engine?
Still, you are definite about this and you may be able to disclose more about the grounds for your confidence.
There is some evidence of left engine automatic relights/restarts in simulator runs, though maybe not using RR engines.
@Ge Rijn
“The plane was shot at by its own militairy.”
sorry, this is a Hollywood scenario too much, these days
@all
about Orlando again…
🙁 the guns laws… we here in EU have the same issue on table, although it seems we have not so much mass shooting crimes here
(no aggregated statistics, may be we dont see each other well too yet…) but at least our country has good law, maybe superior in EU and “she” is still trying to impose on us something more overbureucratized and limiting, often without common sense (UK, we desperatelly need your help too, pls)
but your country seems to be too dangerous for the rest of the world with ability to buy any type even semiautomatic guns easier than table of chocolate or so… really 🙁
… and you have always chance to do something with it too, for yourself, pls
Fox News host shocks audience by asking: ‘Do we need AR-15s?’
https://www.rt.com/usa/346863-fox-news-pro-gun-control/
China should have taken a strong lead in finding the plane. They certainly don’t shy away from confrontation. 200+ Chinese passengers on MH370 and China trades it for influence in the South China Sea.
KUALA LUMPUR: China has advised the Philippines to emulate Malaysia in resolving the territorial dispute over the South China Sea.
China’s Ambassador to Malaysia, Huang Huikang, said on Monday that rather than adopt a confrontational approach through “unilateral arbitration”, Manila should adopt Malaysia’s “amicable way” of resolving the issue.
@Victor: thanks for the link. If the perps already had Inmarsat singing from their songsheet, I wouldn’t think it a huge stretch to get the USGS in “harmony”. In for a penny…
And the report seems odd. The USGS guy seemed to go out of his way to make the Chinese folks seem uninformed, by calling them out on their claim that the area wasn’t geologically active. The Chinese were clearly referring to the NE location when they made their statement, whereas the USGS was clearly referring to the SW location, so I found this insinuation to be unfounded. I get interested when people cross lines of logic in order to discredit.
But despite this, I’m open to being talked away from the NE node, because the time seems wrong: 18:55 UTC is an hour and 34 minutes after comms were lost. While this event could have been related to MH370 in some other way, it seems not to fit as a surface impact.
The timing works a lot better for the SW location. And while the USGS may be right about geological activity SW of Sumatra, the close fit to MH370’s last known time & position is a pretty big coincidence.
Finally: I did a quick download of seismic activity near Sumatra for the 34 years leading up to this event. True to form, we’re left with yet another coincidence: of the 8,000+ records in the geographical box I selected, this event is – by a considerable margin – the tiniest seismic event ever logged into the USGS database:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72RVJmdnc4WTl6QW8/view?usp=sharing
I’ll let you guess which dot is the one we’re not supposed to worry about…
@falken
I know. Just wanted to push the limits a bit with a very embarrissing scenario.
And my fantasy is then running a bit wild too..
In between landed back on earth though.
So Brock, this presumed seismic event points to just SW of Sumatra, as do various other theories.
That’s encouraging – if people would take it seriously, that is, and begin looking there.
@Brock McEwen
Good find. Couldn’t help hopping in here.
The coincidences are adding up again.
USA always said SOI
Indonesians initially said No go in our water.
The weaker of the Ocean search contractors.
Now the seismic info which US said ignore!
I said briefly back in march 2016 that I don’t think Malaysia wants to
find MH370
@Ge Rijn
If you don’t push the limits a lost will be lost. Keep going.
Enjoying your tenacity.
@Rob
Good work. Can you provide this list from the maintainance manual?
Imo there is still one important problem left. There is no way (yet) to tell it was 661 or 561.
This is important for it will tell if it came from the left or the right wing.
@Ge Rijn
“The plane was shot at by its own militairy.”
sorry, this is a Hollywood scenario too much, these days
I dont think so. Let us play this through for a moment.
The plane was diverted at Igari. It was then observed on primary radar to have tracked back to Kota Bharu, Penang, Pulau Perak, And then enroute to Mekar, when radar contact was lost. Sometime later the positively controlled flightpath of MH370 changed into some kind of ghost flight to the south.
It is still unclear, wether the track on primary military radar was observed life or wether this track has been detected upon a later check of the tapes. It could be both though, that some part of the flight was detected by a vigilant controler and an alarm was raised. The most probable point of detection would be the area over the mainland of the peninsula. The normal reaction to such a rogue aircraft would be to launch fighter aircraft for interception, identification and intervention.
The statements of the defence minister in the early hours of the accident raised many eyebrows, his behaviour in follow up interviews even bewilderment. Lot of people asked, what role the RMAF played that night, why no fighters were launched. A low flying loud aircraft was observed by some villagers. McKay made a statement to have seen an aircraft on fire, which could have been a fighter aircraft with afterburner selected. Both could have seen or heard a fighter aircraft searching for MH370. As it was night, the size of an aircraft to an untrained observer is unclear. The sailoress observed unusual flying activity which she later assumed to have been MH370. All those observations have been disregarded and are uncommented by official sources. They all still lack reasonable explanation.
Flight maneuvers of MH370 in the vertical were reported in the early days, later withdrawn. We accepted this light hearted, because it served the ghost flight autopilot scenario well. Fact is, we still know very little over this important phase of the flight, although there should be a lot more information available than we are made to believe.
From factual information dated 01/2015
“After 4 hours 11 minutes had passed since the last contact with the aircraft KL ARCC was activated at 21:30 UTC. It took another 1 hor 2 minutes for the DETRESFA message to be dissiminated via the AFTN at 22:32 UTC”
When the search and rescue operations were started it should have been already known at least to the military, that MH370 tracked northwest when last primary contact was lost. Despite that, those search activities started in the area of the last ATC radar contact, later followed by activities around the area of last primary radar contact. Both search areas lack reasonable evidence for those search activities, as it should have been known, that MH370 tracked back and flew to the northwest, where it abbruptly disappeared at 18:22 UTC. This disappearance was most probably due to flying out of radar range.
The factual information lacks information about the SAR activities in the early days, and we have to ask what is the reason for that.
It would be interesting to make a background check on recent (last 2 years) changes of personal in the respective ATC and defence organisations. Who got sacked, who got promoted, who was transferred to other duties, and even who lost his life. Aditionally interesting would be information on procedures changed and responsibilities moved from one organisation to another one.
Back to the original question: A shootdown of a civilian airliner, for whatever reason, would raise reactions from all over the world and would impact civil air traffic considerably. If such a shootdown occurred it would be not a message to be communicated light hearted. It even gets more complicated when no evidence can be provided, as the aircraft you tried to shoot down disappeared into nowhere. What are you gonna say and who will believe your honest motives?
But if it was a shootdown, then at least the french (because of the flaperon) and the Malayans know about it. And Inwould assume that this knowledge does not stop on the door of some other superpower. That would also explain the weired debris handling and the silence of such superpowers.
@Ge Rijn
I didn’t have the heart to tell you, so I’m grateful that others have – the shoot down scenario is a complete non starter, for more reasons than I could list here.
We have to find another explanation for the debris holes. If a fragment has a high kinetic energy, ie is moving at very high speed, it can do a disproportionate amount of damage when it hits something, and it doesn’t have to be made of metal, either. Back in the 1950s there were a series of disasters involving the Comet airliner. Metal fatigue around the cabin windows causes explosive decompression and breakup at altitude. In one instance, investigators found a fleck of paint from the interior, etched into a part of the tail structure, evidence of the violent decompression, and incidentally of the energy a high velocity particle can have.
In my opinion, all the score marks and pock marks found on the debris, could have been due to the disintegrating engine cowling and ancillaries.
@Ge Rijn
Re panel 661FB. I don’t have free access to the full Maintenance Manual (to my great regret) so I have had to be resourceful. There is a page of the schedule listing the flaperon panel parts, online. Google flaperon images, and you will find it. Panels can be identified on the hi res photo, from their dimensions. You then work your way along the wing until you find the location of 661FB. Its not that difficult, really. I’m surprised someone else hasn’t done it already!
Statistically, to me at any rate, the panel is much more likely to be 661FB, rather than 561FB. When Liam Lotter’s flap fairing turned up, subsequent to the RH flaperon, and the no step piece was identified as RH tailplane, and recently the flaperon seal panels, well they all come from the RH side.
Just about everything is coming from the RH side. It’s shouting something pretty loudly to me, at any rate.
Where are the pieces from the LH side? Surely, we should have seen them by now if there were any?
Ge Rijn and Rob, One view on the debris damage.
To me evidence has accumulated that there was a high speed impact, not a controlled ditching. The RR piece (compared to Sullenberger/Hudson engine cowls) in particular, the distortion of the table support hinge on the Rodrigues cabin bulkhead panelling, the part (“No Step”) torn from the horizontal stabiliser, the second internal part (the monitor frame) being found and various cuts and holes are becoming highly suggestive of that, piloted or not.
The flaperon might have been ejected substantially intact as was part of an outboard flap in MH17s impact with the ground.
The significance generally of end-of-flight is that just what might have happened there is informing where any new search area might be and what chances it will offer, as I understand ATSB remarks.
@GeRijn, @Brock, @RetiredF4, To be clear, what you seem to be proposing–that MH370 was shot down somewhere near Malaysia/Indonesia–is what I have classified as a “category 3” scenario, meaning that it presupposes that the Inmarsat data have be thrown out. I wouldn’t rule it out as impossible, but I would remind you that once you throw out such bedrock data, and assume the necessary multinational conspiracy to falsify it, you make it impossible to move forward toward solving the mystery through logic and data. With all clues suspect, how can you argue for anything? Brock, for instance, has argued that seismological data might be linked to the plane hitting the sea surface or seabed; but if that were the case, why wouldn’t that have been faked, too?
I just got a book out of the library called “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible.” It’s about life in contemporary Russia, and its title refers to the fog of uncertainty that Russian government propoganda creates, but it also describes the game that you are playing here. You are saying that scenarios without evidence are just as valid as scenarios with evidence. This is Johnny Cochrane territory. It is not the stance of someone who legitimately wants to solve a riddle; it is the stance of someone who knows that the facts on the ground go against them, and will do resort to any rhetorical shenanigans to obscure that fact.
@David
I’m really not with you there, at all. The recent comments from Martin Dolan, ie the ATSB’s official view, shows they are still (oficially) in denial about pilot control at the end of the flight. Quite why they are continuing with this irrational stance, contrary to all the evidence, is the biggest puzzle of all. It’s been discussed on this forum, an nauseum.
Unofficially, they have a slightly different take on it, imho. Evidently, they are now engaged in extending the bathymetry as far downrange of the DSTG hotspot, as possible within the time constraints, in the hope it might show up as backscatter.
The damage to the flaperon trailing edge is consistent only with a controlled, high speed ditching, imho, as are most of the other parts recovered, flap fairing, trailing edge, trailing edge panels. The flaps had to be down when the a/c hit the water, no question. A ditching of a plane this size, in rough waters, is inevitably going to be a violent event. The seat back item floated out through door 1R, as did the interior panel.
Question, where are the life jackets and personal items?
@ Rob, in the event of a reasonably controlled ditch, or otherwise, would lifejackets be likely to float if they were not inflated on impact?
@Jeff Wise
I agree a scenario like this would fall in your catagory 3. And with this it’s probably only distracting and not constructive.
I got carried away a bit by the kind of damage I assume to see.
But there is a difference in what I suggested and the way you interpretated it I think.
I suggested the plane was ‘shot at’ not ‘shot down’. In my imagination the plane was scrambled, shot at and damaged, leaving a crippled plane fly on the way it did all the way to the SIO. This would only require a cover up by the Malaysian government and its militairy.
Comparable with what happened to MH17 and the cover up by Russia and its militairy of its involvement till now.
@Ge Rijn, Thanks for the clarification, yes, that makes a lot more sense. One key point that I think bears reiterating is that the failure of the seabed search suggests that the plane was actively piloted at the very end, effectively ruling out all “ghost ship” scenarios. This is obviously a hugely important development as it eliminates a lot of scenarios, including many of the most popular.
@Susie
I think that non-inflated lifejackets would be expected to float. Most lightweight items, especially of plastic etc, and buoyant items with internal air spaces would be expected to float, imo.
Non-buoyant metal items would sink.
@Jeff Wise
Imo a scenario like this could leave all Inmarsat data intact and does not necessary rule out an actively piloted flight till the end. It would only imply a damaged plane with probably (much) less control and communication capabilities.
@jeffwise
Slightly off topic, a small but revealing insight into the power of the Russian propaganda machine. When a large meteorite exploded over Chekyabinsk in February 2013,a lot of the action and reaction was caught on dashboard cams and mobile phones.
I heard some of the comments. One said “what the f*** is that?” Another said “has the war started?!”
They are fed propaganda making us out as the dreaded enemy.
@Jeff
Sorry for not explaining. I consider the ISAT data, the radar data and the genuity of the debris as good evidence, not bullet proof, uncomplete, but solid enough.
If the RMAF intercepted MH370 and engaged with weapons, the chances that a 777 airframe would survive such an engagement are pretty good. The warhead a of AAM is small in size and explosive force. The most common AAM used for such an easy target would be an infrared guided missile in a tail chase. IR AAM steer for the greatest heat source, an engine. A hit from behind would damage the tail section of the engine and the wing part behind the engine, and the fuselage might be breeched by shrapnell. The damage caused might have changed the plan of the culprits, as the original goal (whatever that was) deemed no longer achievable. Plan A was no longer working, plan B came active, get rid of the evidence by heading the aircraft to the south and leave it on its own. Such a flight does not necessitate an active pilot past the FMT. We would have a damaged aircraft with a damaged wing, causing yaw and thus in the end a flightpath which Oleksandr worked out. TAC does not react on measured yaw, but on computed (not measured) thrust difference of the engines. Thus a degraded engine performance and structural damage on one wing would most probably not be fully compensated by TAC.
In the end of flight scenario the damaged flaperon seperated and thus maintained structural integrity.
We might even be able to put a timetag on the weapon engagement event, the reboot of the SAT system prior FMT.
EgyptAir MS804
Cockpit voice recorder retrieved
http://bigstory.ap.org/2ec2423a6bbe410c9f24bd3cde615626
^^And they had much better data on the last location of the plane.
MH370 though… not going to be found. Atleast, not in our lifetime.
@Jeff: that’s twice, now, you’ve made the claim that folks like me are not trying to find out the truth. I beg you to choose your words more carefully: speaking for myself, not hing could be further from the truth, and so the accusation cuts me to the bone.
I don’t come to Camp 3 on a whim. The Inmarsat data’s provenance was remarkably dubious from inception; after 20 months spent searching where experts told us it’s values indicated – without success – it is rational to consider the possibility that something is wrong with it. Indeed, it would be very unscientific to close off our minds to the possibility.
My renewed interest in the hydrophone recordings was sparked by the small size of confirmed debris, which experts tell me indicated a high-energy impact. We have some sound recordings, then – previously ignored due to incompatibility with the signal data – which are worth a much closer look.
Similarly, my increasing interest in the Maldives debris is renewed by its striking similarities to some of the African pieces. With the “surfboard”, et al arguments having fallen apart, such pieces of potentially critical evidence – previously ignored due to incompatibility with the signal data – are now worth a much closer look.
In each case, we are simply going where the evidence leads.
Finally: I’ve already addressed in a prior post your odd assertion that, if it is Camp 3, all is lost, because we the people can’t possibly make any progress towards uncovering the truth. This is sheer nonsense; if the tracks lead into Fangorn Forest, then that’s where we’re going to go to look for our missing friends: truth and accountability.
Feel free to wait for us out at the orc-heap.
@ir1907
Depends on who’s lifetime. For the nonagenarians among us, possibly, otherwise, don’t be so sure.
@Brock
The ISAT data is valid IMO. The assumptions made in its interpretation are the problem. The ISAT data does not have to be wrong for the current search area to be wrong. Just pointing this out for readers on the site who may be misled into thinking that a failure to find the aircraft in the current search area says anything at all about the ISAT data.
Conversely, if the ISAT data is valid, the aircraft cannot have terminated anywhere near the Maldives. Without a deliberate spoof of the ISAT data the Maldives can be taken off the list of possibilities. Anyone postulating a spoof should have some convincing reasons for why a spoof was performed. I have yet to hear any reasons.
@DennisW,
You say the ISAT data does not have to be wrong for the search area to be wrong.
Then you rule out the Maldives.
So, what you are saying is that the interpretation of the ISAT data can be wrong enough to make the search area wrong, but not wrong enough to put the plane in the Maldives.
Isn’t that a pretty arbitrary conclusion?
@JS, You wrote “So, what you are saying is that the interpretation of the ISAT data can be wrong enough to make the search area wrong, but not wrong enough to put the plane in the Maldives.”
That is correct. It is not arbitrary. The Inmarsat data quite unmistakably indicates that MH370 was somewhere on the 7th arc at 00:19. Only a very small portion of the seabed under this arc has been scanned. So it is easy to imagine that the plane is on the arc somewhere else.
Meanwhile, there is no credible evidence that puts MH370 in the Maldives. Nor, for that matter, is there any plausible scenario that would put it there. The Maldives’ main role seems to be serve as a redding herring to distract attention from logic- and evidence-based lines of inquiry.
@Brock, Your motives are unknowable to me, but I can observe your actions, and they align very well with someone who wants to create a smokescreen over sincere efforts to find MH370.
You have been indefatigable in your pestering of the search authorities for information, which I admire. What I don’t admire is that having obtained a great deal of information from these extremely patient and helpful civil servants, you have thereupon thrown their graciousness back in their faces by insisting that since the data in your hands does not conform with your virulently anti-US belief system, they must be part of a vast conspiracy. I find this especially galling given the huge amount of money lavished by the Australian government on the seabed search, and the stoic heroism of the search crews, who have had to endure a month of unimaginably rough seas merely to wait for calm enough weather to deploy their search equipment. Their commitment is humbling, and you do them a disservice by your continual sniping.
Finally, I find your foot-stomping over the supposed instransigence of the authorities not only puerile but utterly illogical. You are literally hypothesizing a vast and nefarious conspiracy, whose perpetrators can only be brought to justice by–demands from the public that they fess up!
If you are not already working for the troll squadrons of St Petersburg I urge you to hurry there right now to get a job, because your persistent orneriness, disdain for logic and passion for obfuscation make you a perfect fit.
@RetiredF4
Maybe a question you can answer.
Is such a IR AAF rocket one that exlodes on impact or at near distance like hat SAM missile that brought MH17 down?
And is a warhead on such a rocket (AAF) filled with shrapnel or is only its outer casing fragmentating on exploding?
@ Jeff and DennisW ( and others ) – may i be allowed to insert a slightly different term in referring to the status of the Fugro teams search….instead of implementing the word…failure….please modify the usage to reflect ” un-success ” or “non-success” up to this point in time. The search endeavor is ongoing at this time and “far” from over….it is very successfully proven where the plane is not….so in the interest of keeping the morale of the closely involved parties elevated and hopeful….please guys….a little more positiveness on our part….two more months….60 days….lot of virgin land to cover….( maybe we can keep in the back of our mind the headlines in papers across the globe…MH370 FOUND…hope springs eternal….)….G.
@RetiredF4
An AAM offcourse.. excuse me..
@Jeff, I don’t really have a dog in the Maldives fight, and I understand your “logic and evidence” approach, and I generally agree that it’s a red herring.
But it seems that two extremes are openly discussed – one, that the ISAT data is infallible, and two, that it is spoofed.
Missing is any acknowledgement of a middle ground – that the data was honestly collected but that there could be flaws in the recording or interpretation of it. In fact, of all the systems involved in building, maintaining, and operating an airliner and a satellite, logging data is probably the least regulated. I’d have more faith in KL ATC than a logging application that’s not mission critical.
So why would you rule out any problems with the data, but entertain a spoof?
(If the spoof is completely off the table, I stand corrected)
@JS, The logging of satellite data is mission-critical to Inmarsat, if the values go outside certain bounds the whole system doesn’t work. This data was looked at very carefully, and cross-checked with other airplanes flying similar routes at the same time. If someone was able to come up with a specific way that an error might have been made, I think it would bear looking into, but I don’t think it’s productive to spend much time on scenarios that require a coincidental, unknown happenstance of presumably very low probability.
As to your last point, I believe that a spoof is still on the table. Others may not.
@George Connelly, You make an excellent point. I don’t think that the SIO searchers have failed in any sense. They have provided invaluable service in proving where the plane isn’t, and may yet find it.
Jeff – It wasn’t all mission critical, though. The values weren’t even logged until Air France. The system ran without logging that data for years. That isn’t mission critical.
I have nothing to indicate that it wasn’t looked at or programmed very carefully. But it simply isn’t in the same class of testing and reliability as, say, the airplane’s flight controller software or an ATC radar system.
@JS, That’s true only regarding the BTO values, which you’re right, aren’t mission critical. BFO values have always been recorded and are mission critical.
Recall that MH370’s BTO values post-diversion were calibrated with their values pre-diversion, and the ease with which they could have been falsified (or lack thereof) has been discussed here at length.
@Susie @ ROB @Ge Rijn @Jeff @All
I still question the interpretation of the delays in the ISAT data. No issue with the data itself; Reason: I don’t believe someone can be that sophisticated to fake this data. I think the facts are hidden in the data and the data timing delays for various electronic reasons.
Question: Has the data been validated by flying a “similarly equipped” airplane in a similar manner and getting similar delays? The key is a “similarly equipped” airplane. Heard the comment about testing data against other airplanes. Reason:
Question: Was MH370 ever setup to send and receive the complete airplane dataset? I understand it was doing the handshake but not sending the data packages. I thought MH370 had not purchased the data package for cost reasons. I don’t know if the array antenna was ever installed or even hooked up. I originally thought that the standard antenna was the only one on this airplane. Reason: On some airplanes’ we installed flat panels on the top of the fuselage when a customer did not purchase the array antenna. Cost reasons. Provisioned for it at a later time. No idea if MH370 was one of these airplanes. No idea at all.
Can the airplane handshake without the array antenna?
Do we really know what the electronic configuration of MH370 was?
On floating debris. Tightly packed Non-inflated lifejackets might not float. No air in them to begin with. They are installed below the seat cushions. Might not pull free. Sink with seats. Density might not support floating. High impact velocity could tear luggage bins from airplane. They could float along with many other parts. H/C constructions throughout airplane. E.g. Floor panels. There are lots of parts or portions of parts on the airplane that should float. Some personal items will float; but hard to fit to an airplane.
On controlled high energy ditching. What data supports “controlled” ditching. I don’t see it. Small parts debris and interior fuselage parts debris supports high energy impact. How is “controlled” rationalized? Flaperon damage supports a relatively high energy impact. A plane out of fuel with RAT deployed should glide to the surface all by itself at a high rate of speed, 200-250 knots, in cruise configuration. Might not be level on impact. Lower Flaperon might be down. One engine should hit first; high wave, low wing. Engine lowest point of airplane with gear up.
@Jeff, yes, they’ve always been recorded, but that doesn’t make them mission critics either.
Logging is ancillary to their mission of providing satellite communication. If a log gets corrupted or lost, the system still works. At best, a failed log interferes with the ability to collect revenue or to make improvements in the future.
Security, on the other hand, is critical. Allow an attacker in, and the system fails.
My point is that we have to keep in mind the comparative importance of the various systems, because at the moment, the owners of those systems do not admit any failure at all.
Both an erroneous log or a spoofed log would put blame at ISAT’s feet, but of the two, only a security breach puts their business in jeopardy.
We could argue that, well, then they’d be more likely to cover up a security breach, but at the same time, I suggest that we have to accept a greater chance of error in non-mission critical functions than in mission critical ones.
Hence my concern that a bad log is more likely than a spoof.
On a related note, we’ve already accepted the possibility that Indonesian radar has failed to properly log the flight, and that is a military mission. Why would we expect more from a satellite internet provider than a military radar operator?
@Rob
Yes your right it doesn’t have to be metalic or heavy necessarily. When speed is high enough any kind of particle could penetrate even metal I know.
They cut metal with water don’t they.
But I’m only trying to figure out clues in which an explosion/defragmentation in or outside the plane could have caused this particular damage.
It’s about turning a new stone imo one that wasn’t looked under before this way.
@JS, The clue that suggests a spoof is the strange re-logon to Inmarsat at 18:25. This suggests that somebody tampered with the SDU. Victor Iannello has suggested a very specific mechanism by which a single parameter could be changed in order to generate the observed BFO values. This is only a hypthesis, but it is a well-defined one. In contrast, the notion of a “bad log” is an entirely hypothetical creature for which there is no known precedent or evidence for.
@Ken Goodwin, the electronic equipment with which 9M-MRO was equipped have been extremely well characterized. The plane was equipped with both a high-gain and low-gain satellite antennae that were in perfect working order.